That’s what makes them choices.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and the Indiana Supreme Court made a set of linked choices regarding a second disciplinary complaint against Rokita—choices that will have consequences for the people of Indiana.
Rokita first.
Our attorney general confronted a dilemma of his own making. His mean-spirited and foolish persecution of Indiana reproductive care doctor Caitlin Bernard had landed him in a predicament.
Rokita put himself in this pickle with a series of decisions of escalating idiocy starting in 2022, when Bernard performed a legal abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio girl who had become pregnant as the result of being raped.
Our attorney general didn’t bother to determine the facts of the situation before rushing in front of Fox News cameras to condemn Bernard in terms so outrageous that even Fox quickly backed away from them.
That did not deter Rokita. He continued to disparage Bernard long after it was clear his charges had no factual basis.
Lawyers, including a retired federal judge and a law school dean, submitted grievances regarding the attorney general’s conduct.
Eventually, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission produced a complaint. In a settlement, Rokita acknowledged in an affidavit—under penalty of perjury—that he could not defend himself against charges in the complaint.
In return for that acknowledgement, Rokita received a light tippy-tap on the wrist—a public reprimand that had all the force of a mild tut-tut—from the state’s high court. Two of the justices, including Chief Justice Loretta Rush, thought the punishment was not severe enough.
It certainly didn’t deter Rokita, who rushed out a statement saying he didn’t mean a word of the affidavit.
That prompted a fresh round of grievances. Other attorneys pointed out—with considerable logic—that Rokita had to have been lying either when he signed the affidavit or when he postured for the MAGA crowd in his public statement.
Another complaint followed.
We should pause to note here that, in the annals of willful stupidity, this merits Hall of Fame consideration.
One could overtax a high-capacity calculator counting all the chances Rokita had to put this matter to rest.
To point out just a few: He could have waited to find out what really happened before appearing on Fox News. Once the facts were clear, he could have confined his remarks to impassioned but generic condemnations of abortion. When the Supreme Court gave him that sweetheart-deal punishment, he could have kept his mouth shut and gone back to doing his job.
He did none of those things.
Instead, he spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds fighting the charges.
He wasted more than a half-million dollars of our money defending his fibs and fabrications.
And the Indiana Supreme Court, it turns out, let him get away with it.
Under pressure from the court, Rokita and the disciplinary commission arrived at another settlement to this second complaint. All five justices approved it.
This settlement was even gentler than the first.
Rokita acknowledged that he “really meant” what he said in the affidavit. Forced into making a choice between admitting he lied to the court in a sworn document or admitting he lied to the public in his statement, our attorney general decided that owning up to lying to the public was the more acceptable option.
If the voters continue to tolerate such conduct, then they will send a strong signal that they’re willing—no, eager—to be lied to and fleeced by their own lawyer.
And the Indiana Supreme Court?
Rokita is the second rogue attorney general in a row to treat the code of conduct governing lawyers with contempt.
The state’s high bench has had multiple opportunities to draw a hard line.
The court passed on every one of those opportunities.
I understand the reluctance of the court to overturn the results of the 2024 election.
But the reality is that the transgressions have continued to escalate as it has become clear that Dutch-uncle discipline for out-of-control attorneys general doesn’t work.
Now, the court has delivered a clear message.
That message?
We have a two-tiered system in Indiana. Conduct by the attorney general that would get any other lawyer suspended or disbarred will be tolerated by this court.
Doubtless that’s not the legacy the Rush court wanted, but that is the one these justices chose.
Choices have consequences.
That’s what makes them choices.
